You are right, of course, and the comments responding to you are ignoring the empirical evidence. It won't be censored as in burning every book and deleting it's very existence, but it is de facto censorship when the voting system can reduce the visibility and the incentive of a users comments.
On the other hand, at least it does have permanence even if it isn't promoted and seen or even flagged, so I'm still very very bullish on Steemit over the long term and the idea of social media on a blockchain even if there were no absurdly high rewards.
If I had my druthers I would tweak the system so that a post starts to enter diminishing returns after a certain point. I am unable to fathom what makes any of the 10k rewarded posts worth that much. Just because the posts can make that much doesn't mean they should make that much. Many users think these rewards are coming out of thin air, but giving a highly rewarded post even more upvotes takes away from the pool of rewards for the day. So if a post makes 5k and you think that is about what it should be paid, hold off on your vote. Don't just click because you like it or think you will make 0.002 steem from it. You and voters like you will be essentially downvoting and lowering the reward for every other post on the platform. Those rewards have to come from somewhere. This is essentially a zero sum game and we are divvying up the slices of pie.
Please stop feeding a user that is already full in the hopes you will get a crumb that falls from their mouth.
If I'm off in my assessment, please correct me where I am in error.